Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight, which cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. 

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih said that if there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence. 

The court also rejected the suspicion raised by the appellants Baljinder Singh alias Ladoo and his brothers regarding the genesis of the case as unfounded and upheld their conviction and sentence of life term for killing two persons on December 12, 1997 in Taran Tarn. 

The prosecution claimed that the father of the appellants along with one of the accused was going to Gurudwara on a scooter, which hit a prosecution witness, who slapped the accused. Within 15 minutes, the accused, four in number, came back with double barrel gun and other weapons and attacked the victim's families resulting in death of two persons and injuries to others. The trial court in 2001 convicted the appellants and their father, who died subsequently in 2019. The high court in 2011 confirmed their conviction and sentence but acquitted another accused.

The serious/fatal injuries sustained by the victims have been substantiated by medico-legal evidence provided by witnesses from the medical field, who have also testified under oath. The severe nature of the attack by the accused and inflicting serious/fatal injuries upon the victims led to the inference that the appellants came with an intention to kill in retaliation of a previous altercation. Hence, the prosecution version is indeed reliable, the bench noted.

The appellants also contended that the high court did not dwell upon the dissimilitude between common object and common intention while transmuting the appellants’ conviction under section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC to section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC. They said the common intention cannot be formed within 30 minutes.

The bench, however, said that Section 34, IPC underlines that when a criminal act is done by two or more persons in furtherance of common intention, each of them is liable for the act done as if it were done by him alone.

"We are of the view that there cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention. It is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime. Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the commission of the act. Since common intention is a mental state of the perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly. Instead, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act," the bench said.

In the present case, the appellants, who were related by blood, arrived at the crime scene armed with a double barrel gun and attacked the victim following the altercation over the bumping of the scooter to the injured witness.

"The determination of common intention or common object should primarily be within the domain of the trial courts, and at the most the high courts. It should not be the role of this court to directly adjudicate issues of common intention and common object. This court has, in a catena of decisions, elaborated on the differences between section 149 and section 34, IPC; the overlapping nature of section 149 and section 34, IPC; and when can the offence under section 302 read with section 149, IPC be changed to section 302 read with section 34, IPC. Such decisions do provide suitable guidance for the lower courts to draw from, to reach their conclusions," the bench said.

The court also said that it would be relevant at this juncture to consider section 464 of the CrPC.

"On its plain terms, sub-section (1) of section 464 clearly indicates that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in an appeal, confirmation or revision, a claim of "failure of justice" has been substantiated," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that law is well-settled that in order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself.

Also, it is beyond any cavil of doubt that the burden to show that in fact a failure of justice has been occasioned is on the accused, the bench said.

"We have no hesitation to hold that the appellants have fairly and squarely failed in their pursuit to demonstrate any failure of justice, which would impel us to exercise power of the nature contemplated in sub-section (2) of section 464, CrPC. We, therefore, see no reason to uphold the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants to the contrary," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that it is also settled law that examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable. "Non-examination of any independent witness by the prosecution will not go to the root of the matter affecting the decision of the court, unless other witnesses’ testimonies and evidences are scant to establish the guilt of the accused," the bench said.

The court said that the prosecution's case could not be dismissed solely on the ground of the absence of an independent witness, upon careful examination of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with the relevant other evidence on record.

In its judgment, the apex court answered in negative to the sole issue whether the conviction and sentence of the life term imposed on three appellants warranted interdiction.

The bench affirmed and upheld the high court's decision finding the three accused guilty of offences under sections 148, 302, and 307, IPC read with section 34 thereof as correct, and dismissed the appeal as bereft of any merit.

Case Title: Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo And Others Vs State of Punjab